Dismissed

Prashant Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Jan 2021SAW/696/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal was against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking appointment as Junior Instructor. The court rejected the appellant's claim that departmental laxity in issuing his license should excuse non-compliance with the cut-off date, emphasizing the need for fairness and transparency in recruitment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prashant Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 696/2020

¶3

Prashant Sharma S/o Shri Dev Narayan Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Bapu Gali, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh (Roll No. 302190).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Through President, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶8

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Prakash Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

14/01/2021

¶14

This special appeal is directed against order dated 10.11.20 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant aggrieved by denial of selection on the post of Junior Instructor (Mechanic Diesel Engine) in the Department of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Government of Rajasthan, has been dismissed.

¶15

The candidature of the appellant was rejected as he was not holding the valid license to drive a heavy vehicle as on the last date of submission of the application form.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[SAW-696/2020]

¶18

Precisely, the contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant was having a valid license to drive heavy vehicles, though issued after submitting the application form but before the date of documents verification and therefore, the rejection of his candidature is illegal and arbitrary.

¶19

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal in light of decisions of the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors.: JT 1993 (1) SC 220 and Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.: JT 1997(4) SC 99. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while reiterating the contention raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge submitted that the appellant had applied for license for heavy vehicle much prior to the last date of filing of the application form but due to laxity of the department, the license could not be issued and therefore, the appellant cannot be penalised for no fault on his part. Learned counsel submitted that when even the persons appearing in their final examination of the academic qualification prescribed have been permitted to participate in the selection process, the denial of appointment to the appellant on the ground of his not possessing the requisite eligibility regarding license to drive heavy vehicle as on the last date for submitting the application form, is not justified.

¶20

It is settled law that the persons applying for recruitment to a post must hold the requisite qualification on the date stipulated while advertising the post in terms of the relevant recruitment Rules and where no cut-off date is prescribed as on the last date for submission of the application form. Unless, the cut off date fixed for acquiring the eligibility qualification is found to be

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[SAW-696/2020]

¶23

arbitrary and unreasonable, no interference can be made by this court.

¶24

Admittedly, in the instant case, for recruitment to the post of Junior Instructor (Mechanic Diesel Engine), license to drive heavy vehicles was an essential qualification. It is true that under the advertisement, where the selections are made on the basis of written examination, the candidate is required to acquire the academic qualification before appearance in the written examination. But then, in respect of the other qualification, no such relaxation is envisaged. Obviously, many more meritorious persons who were not holding the eligibility qualification as on the last date of submission of the application form, might not have applied for recruitment to the post. The sanctity of the cut off date has to be maintained for fairness and transparency in the recruitment process. No relaxation could have been granted by the respondents entertaining an individual request of the appellant. If such requests are entertained, the selection process cannot be completed within the time frame and it may adversely affect the fairness and transparency in the selection process.

¶25

In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction.

¶26

The special appeal is therefore, dismissed.

¶27

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶28

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶29

4-Aditya/-

Prashant Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prashant Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rati Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Razdan Vs Mr. T. Srinivasan

State of Rajasthan Vs Lal Chand Chotiya

Dungar Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Shree Rishabdev Marble and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Chunni Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan